By Louise Scott, Gary Crusader
A special use permit for a pregnant teenager’s home to be located in the 600 block of Lincoln Street was defeated due to the high volume of calls and text messages opposing the measure directed to councilmembers and speakers at a recent City Council meeting.
The plan was aimed at providing temporary residency in a group home type setting for teenagers during their pregnancy. Two women, Josephine M. Webb and Geraldine Thomas, submitted the request for the special use permit to rezone the area from its current residential zoning. The group home would have been located on a relatively quiet block in a five-bedroom single family home. It was the last item on the City Council’s agenda.
Opposition to the idea was met by a number of the residents from the area that spoke at the recent City Council meeting giving councilmembers various reasons why they did not want the house or the occupants in their neighborhood.
The city’s Board of Zoning Appeals Department (BZA) mailed out 47 letters to the residents in the area seeking their opinion to the idea of having the home in their neighborhood. According to a representative of the Zoning Appeals Department, 36 of the 47 letters were returned indicating they opposing the plan. There also was a list of residents who signed an opposing petition. Those opposing on the petition were the same 36 who responded by mail.
There were a number of residents that came to the council meeting. Councilman for the second district, Michael Protho stated that he was against the facility due to the number of calls he received from people in his district. Councilwoman Regan Hatcher said, “I think that in this case that we should let the community members speak for themselves.”
Ann Davis told the council she opposed the ordinance. She said, “The residents were not properly notified of the petition for special use. We are against special use in our community. We want our community to stay residential. I’m also opposed because when it was recommended for approval one of the comments made by one of the committee members recommended that if you had to take poison you take the lesser of two evils. That statement alone implies that in our positon we have to take poison. We don’t have to take poison. Also at the BZA meeting one of the members said that he hopes that the petitioners would get a fair return on their investment. We, the residents of the Lincoln Street block have lived there for over 40 years. We are citizens of Gary. We have an investment in our community and we would like a return on our investment. This takes from us; it does not give us a return.”
Jean Manley said the 600 Lincoln Street block and surrounding corners are stable, well maintained and occupied by senior citizens mostly. She said, “We have owned and resided in these homes up to 50 years. I’m the second oldest. The ages range in the early 90s. We have five homebound bedridden residents in that one block who require home care service. These homeowners deserve the parking privileges needed for their health care providers and emergency vehicles. Don’t jeopardize their care with overcrowded parking. This home at 636 Lincoln Street is located in a residential neighborhood with the exception of Methodist Hospital. This is a single family home and it should remain as such.”
Tony Cunningham is the precinct committeeperson for the area. She said the residents are against the home, but not against the vision. She said, “We just don’t want it on our block. These girls will need therapy two to three times a week, case managers, parenting groups, mentors and healthcare workers. All those people times five would be too much traffic for the street. There is no parking facility. We are not saying that we think that the people don’t have a great idea, we just don’t want it on our block.”
Patricia Lucas said the topic was sensitive for her because she is a single parent. She said, “I’ve raised two college graduates. I’m all for it, but in being a single parent there are challenges that you deal with. I don’t think that facility is large enough to hold what staff that’s going to be needed to make sure that his project is successful. We have a lot of seniors in this community. I was raised in this community and I watched these seniors take care of their homes. They don’t want to go in a senior assisted living facility; they want to stay in the house that they strived to keep. I don’t think it’s right to bring more teens in a community that we already have a problem with teenagers. We’ve already had four break-ins within one week and I’m one of them. I don’t think it’s fair. We had a senior who was afraid to come tonight. She was locked in her closet hiding from the teenagers that broke in on her. Those kids cannot be put in a facility where they can’t even be protected. As a single parent, I question what type of security are you going to give the kids. I’m against the project being placed in my community, but not against the ladies trying to set up a nice second chance facility for these girls. I applauded them for that, but that’s not the right facility.”
Councilman Protho chastised the council for scheduling the ordinance last on the evening agenda that caused the seniors to have to wait over three hours to speak. He said, “I gave a couple of them a ride down here. I support them. Some of the seniors have called me two to three times a week with their concerns. For us to sit here and have some people get up here and support this project and then want to tell me a story about their life is wrong. These people have been here five hours. They don’t want to hear about your life story. They came here in opposition of this project and that’s what should have been discussed. I’m so disappointed that the priority of this project was put at the bottom of the list and they have been here five hours and none of them are as young as we are.”
The ordinance was put to vote and there was only one councilwoman, who voted in favor. At the conclusion of the meeting, the seniors had tears of joy as they left City Hall.
